--- name: journal-of-hydrology description: Use when targeting Journal of Hydrology or deciding whether a hydrology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the broad process/observational/applied-hydrology contribution bar, data-and-reproducibility expectations, Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Journal of Hydrology (journal-of-hydrology) ## Journal positioning Journal of Hydrology is Elsevier's broad-scope outlet for the hydrological sciences, covering surface and subsurface hydrology, hydrometeorology, water quality, hydrological modeling, and observational hydrology across catchment to continental scales. Its defining expectation is a **sound, useful hydrological advance** — a process insight, a method, a dataset-driven analysis, or an applied result that improves how hydrologic systems are understood, predicted, or managed; it deliberately accommodates process, observational, methodological, and applied studies more broadly than AGU's Water Resources Research, whose bar is fundamental water-science novelty. A well-executed regional study can fit here if it yields transferable lessons or clear hydrological insight, even without a wholly new theory. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live Journal of Hydrology author instructions and data policy. ## When to trigger - The author names Journal of Hydrology and wants a fit/framing check for a hydrology paper. - A regional or applied hydrologic study needs to be positioned for its transferable insight rather than rejected as "just a case study." - The author is choosing between Journal of Hydrology, `water-resources-research`, and a broader earth/climate venue. - The author needs the journal's breadth-of-scope reasoning and reproducibility expectations. ## Scope & topic fit - Surface-water hydrology: rainfall–runoff, streamflow generation, floods, droughts, and catchment water balance across scales. - Subsurface and groundwater hydrology: recharge, aquifer dynamics, soil-water and vadose-zone processes, surface–groundwater interaction. - Hydrometeorology and snow/ice hydrology: precipitation, evapotranspiration, snowmelt, and land-surface water and energy partitioning. - Hydrological modeling, forecasting, remote sensing, and data assimilation, including large-sample and benchmarking studies. - Water quality, solute and sediment transport, and ecohydrology with a clear hydrological process or management linkage. - Applied and regional hydrology — water-resources assessment, human impacts, land-use and climate-change effects — when the analysis yields transferable insight. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution must be a **defensible hydrological advance**: useful process insight, method, dataset analysis, or applied finding, with stated transferability or limitations. - Models must be calibrated and evaluated with appropriate skill metrics, independent validation, and uncertainty treatment; equifinality and parameter sensitivity should be addressed. - Observational and field studies need credible monitoring design, instrument/error characterization, and reproducible data processing. - Claims of improvement require comparison against a sensible baseline model or method, not a weak strawman; large-sample or multi-catchment evidence strengthens generality. - A purely regional result should be explicit about what generalizes and what does not, so reviewers can judge the broader hydrological value. - Data underpinning the analysis should be available or clearly sourced, per Elsevier and journal data policy. ## Structure & house style - Standard Elsevier research-article structure (Introduction, Study area/Data, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions); re-check current article types and length on the live guide. - The introduction must state the hydrological gap and the specific advance, not just describe a basin or list prior work. - Figures should be quantitative and load-bearing (hydrographs, maps, skill/benchmark comparisons, uncertainty bands); study-area maps must support, not replace, analysis. - A highlights list and a structured or graphical abstract are commonly expected — re-check current requirements on the live guide. - Methods and data-availability statements must let a reader reproduce the central result. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Journal of Hydrology page you checked. - Search the live site for "Journal of Hydrology guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version. - Re-check article types, highlights/abstract format, and word/figure expectations. - Confirm the data-availability/research-data policy and any repository or data-statement requirements. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure, and open-access options. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] The advance is a clear hydrological insight, method, or applied finding, not an undigested data dump. - [ ] Models are evaluated with skill metrics, independent validation, and uncertainty treatment. - [ ] Observational/field design, error characterization, and processing are reproducible. - [ ] Improvement is shown against a sensible baseline, and transferability/limitations are stated. - [ ] Highlights, abstract format, and data-availability statement meet current requirements. - [ ] Figures are quantitative and load-bearing, not dominated by descriptive study-area maps. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A regional case study presented with no transferable insight, generalization, or stated lessons. - Model results with no calibration/validation, skill metrics, or uncertainty analysis. - Observational study with weak monitoring design or no error characterization. - Re-analysis of standard data with a routine method and no new hydrological understanding. - Missing data-availability statement or non-compliance with the research-data policy. - Scope mismatch: a pure water-engineering design, climatology, or chemistry paper with no hydrological process or management linkage. ## Re-routing decision - Fundamental, strongly novel water-science theory/methodology → `water-resources-research`. - Land–atmosphere water/energy/flux process focus → `agricultural-and-forest-meteorology`. - Carbon/nutrient biogeochemical cycling dominant → `global-biogeochemical-cycles`. - Climate-dynamics or large-scale climate framing dominant → `journal-of-climate`. - Aquatic-ecology / freshwater-ecosystem emphasis → `limnology-and-oceanography`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Journal of Hydrology [Topic tags] <2–3 closest hydrology topics> [Hydrological advance] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```